A couple of points about Rep. Ed Royce’s recent Women’s Conference at Cal State Fullerton strike me as a little odd.
Royce’s wife speaks in front of a phantom press corps. Did his office fail to notify reporters not in the underworld? Or was it only ghosts who were attracted by the spoor?
First, a total lack of press coverage, especially during the event. When we showed up, shortly before 8 am, I expected to see mobile news vans from the TV stations, a podium out front with microphones for the radio, newspaper, and TV reporters, aides passing out press kits, interviews with Rep. Royce and other principals involved—in short, an actual event being publicized.
But, nobody and nothing.
Pre-event publicity was limited to some wordage on Rep. Royce’s Congressional web site, and a short mention in the OC Register’s “Around Town” section on March 20.
Post-event publicity was limited to a really thin little puff-piece in the CSUF Daily Titan datelined March 25.
One would think that a well-known, long-term Congressman like Ed Royce would be only too happy to ballyhoo the event to the press, grant interviews with the presenters, and generally make a really big deal out of the event; especially since it’s the fifth one he’s done.
The other point that seems strange is the accountability. Since there were no sign in sheets, name tags or anything to identify the attendees, we have no idea how many people actually attended this taxpayer-funded event. Was it a dozen, or a thousand? Where did they come from? Were they constituents? Did any attendees come long distances to attend the event?
Without some accountability, there is simply no way of knowing how many people our tax dollars reached with the message.
And we deserve better.
I expect that it was intended as a campaign event that technically wasn’t one. They might have gotten a lot more members of the public — women and men — to come out and hear this information had it not had the Congressman’s name on it.
I wonder what they’re doing with the sign-in sheets — and whether that will lead to government-paid-for communications with attendees to assure them of the Congressman’s attention to “women’s issues”?
Belatedly, yes.
Are certain that this was a taxpayer funded event?
Would I bet my life on it? No. Would I bet your life on it? Yes.
It was represented to at least two correspondents as such — and appeared (based on sponsorship information, among other things) to be Royce purporting to act in his official capacity rather than as a candidate. You’re the one with the contacts, man — use them!
It was represented as such by whom?
Well, would a campaign event be posted on his official government page?
It’s very interesting, though, skally — it never actually says who sponsors it or where the money for the event is coming from! The language is always — and I mean always, even in places where you wouldn’t expect it — oddly circumspect. For example:
What do you think? Should I investigate the funding of the conference further? (Can I use your name as the one making the inquiry, just to ensure a prompter response?) Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention — you’re right, he could be trying to pull a fast one! If it’s a campaign event, should it be on his (cough-cough) taxpayer-funded government home page?
I don’t think that Royce is pulling anything. I think that you should be more certain before you claim that it was taxpayer funded. Anyway, Loretta Sanchez has similar type events – maybe those are taxpayer funded as well – so what?
Well, you wouldn’t think that he’s pulling anything, would you? Let’s review the possibilities:
(1) taxpayer funds, (2) campaign funds, (3) money donated from his “partners” named above, (4) charitable donations, and (5) his personal funds. (There may be others; they don’t occur to me at present.) Now, I don’t know offhand which of these is necessarily improper — perhaps it’s just hypocrisy — but all of them certainly create potential problems. If they’re not obvious to you, I’ll name them. (Some of them involve why they are on his official website — which is certainly taxpayer-funded. Others may have to do what they do with the names of registrants.)
I wonder about Loretta having “similar-type events.” I’ll bet that when she holds a conference for women, it delves into at least some actual women’s issues. Do you have any announcement of hers, since you’re sure “she does it too”?
First off, Loretta Sanchez is not the subject under discussion.
Second off, my assumption was that since the mailer for the event says that it (the mailer) was “prepared, printed, and mailed at taxpayer expense” even to the use of the franking privilege (that’s where the elected official uses his/her signature in lieu of postage), that the event was likewise funded by the taxpayers.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please make it available and I will quickly print a correction.
Mac – Rather obvious side-step there re. LS. Diamonds questions apply to her just as well as Royce. This is SOP for all members of congress and a typical Diamond wate of time and effort. Just look at the really stupid questions GD asks in this article.
Please note that I wrote the article, not Greg.
If you have some evidence that the event was not paid for with taxpayer money, let me know.
Until then, my logical assumption that it was indeed paid for with taxpayer money stands.
He’s getting on me for an earlier article, John.
And now — sob! — I have revealed a source!
If it was paid for with taxpayer – so what?
Well — what if was functionally a campaign expense? Would that be a problem — or are you OK with public financing now?
And I apologize to you Mac for not giving you credit for your incredibly stupid pointless questions.